Decent Budget German TLR?

[JPD]

The Yashica A with the nice Yashikor lens and four speed shutter (1/25 to 1/300 sec) can often be found for a good price. You use the red window for winding the film, and the shutter has no slow speeds, so there are fewer parts that can break or go sticky. You cock the shutter manually, and the finder is bright.

The Yashikor lens is a nice coated triplet. Soft and dreamy fully open, and very sharp stopped down. It takes easy to find 32mm push on filters and sun shade. If you want to use a cable release you'll need one with a "Leica Glocke", or an adapter. It has a flash contact and cold shoe. The viewing hood has a sportsfinder and a nice magnifier.

The Yashica A is a nice camera for someone who wants to try quality medium format, and since it's simple it rarely needs CLA. Avoid the early ones with the Yashimar lens. It's alright but not as sharp as the Yashikor.

 

[aizan]

Just found a clean Minoltaflex with a chipped viewing lens for $175 BIN/OBO.

Ooh, and an almost new Welta Flektar for $49.99 ($18 shipping)! Somebody jump on that one.

 

[steveyork]

We've had good luck with various Ikoflex over the years. Really quality made. Usually with a Tessera lens.

 

[Forest_rain]

Just found a clean Minoltaflex with a chipped viewing lens for $175 BIN/OBO.

Ooh, and an almost new Welta Flektar for $49.99 ($18 shipping)! Somebody jump on that one.

Looks like someone got the Flektar :O I couldn't find it or at least one that looked like it was working on ebay. Seems like people like TLRs, they seem to go fast.

 

[markjwyatt]

So, what is the big advantage of a TLR over other medium format cameras? I suspect no huge ones, but here are a few:

1. It is kind of like a rangefinder in that we do not need extra distance between the rear of the lens and the film for a mirror assembly coupled to the winder, shutter release, etc.
2. In addition to 1, using the rangefinder analogy re: lens distance to focal plane, I suspect there could be some advantages with optics, allowing more good lens designs without needing things like retro-focus, etc.
3. For interchangeable lens models (basically the Mamiyas for MF) No need to have a complicated coupling path between lens release mechanisms and dark plate/curtains. I.e., on the Mamiyas, when you unlock the lens, and dark plate swings into place to protect the film for lens changes. Not sure if fixed lens TLRs need that at all?
4. You can see the subject even as the shutter activates. No black-out period.
5. For MF or any leaf shutter SLR, there is a need for a complicated coupling between shutter open (for viewing), closed (before shooting, and shooting. So, most MF SLRs have focal plane shutters, which usually means slower shutter speeds for X-synch.
6. Potentially brighter viewing and easier focusing than an SLR. My dad sold me his C330f, and bought an SQA outfit. He said one thing he missed on the TLR was the easier focusing and brighter viewfinder, especially for weddings and events which were not brightly lit.

A MF folder has some advantages, but none that I know of have interchangeable lenses, but most of the TLRs we talk about are fixed lens, so likely not a big issue. A MF folder with a coupled rangefinder (rare and expensive) may be a good option.

In fact I would compare the TLR mainly to rangefinders: separate viewing and taking lenses and the simplicity of this arrangement, at the cost of parallax issues, and uncertainty about exactly what you are shooting. The TLR feels more like an SLR (especially with a prism finder) because you get a really good view of your scene whereas most rangefinder viewfinders are smaller (some accessory viewfinders are nice, but require additional pieces). Maybe some of the modern MF rangefinders are better. I wonder if there was a running argument in Zeiss Ikon about whether to go with TLR or rangefinder moving forward in the 1930s (i.e., the Contax vs. Contaflex)? We know which won.

 

[Forest_rain]

So, what is the big advantage of a TLR over other medium format cameras? I suspect no huge ones, but here are a few:

3. For interchangeable lens models (basically the Mamiyas for MF) No need to have a complicated coupling path between lens release mechanisms and dark plate/curtains. I.e., on the Mamiyas, when you unlock the lens, and dark plate swings into place to protect the film for lens changes. Not sure if fixed lens TLRs need that at all?

In fact I would compare the TLR mainly to rangefinders: separate viewing and taking lenses and the simplicity of this arrangement, at the cost of parallax issues, and uncertainty about exactly what you are shooting. The TLR feels more like and SLR (especially with a prism finder) because you get a really good view of your scene whereas most rangefinder viewfinders are smaller (some accessory viewfinders are nice, but require additional pieces). Maybe some of the modern MF rangefinders are better. I wonder if there was a running argument in Zeiss Ikon about whether to go with TLR or rangefinder moving forward in the 1930s (i.e., the Contax vs. Contaflex). We know which won.

I'm not sure what you mean by the Mamiya. Which Mamiya model are you talking about, are you talking about the 645 SLRs? I didn't know they had a dark plate.


I mostly have SLRs. I haven't had much luck with rangefinders. I have two, and they have caused me nothing but pain and suffering. Trying to align them and fix the shutters has proved to be more effort than it's worth. Perhaps the compact design of the ones I got (vitomatic II and Contessamtic E) makes the innards more prone to getting gooped up? Also they are small and difficult to work on.


Rangefinders tend to be more expensive than SLRs, it seems, I'm not sure if it's because people tend to want a small and light form factor right now. This could be. A TLR has a much more compact and light form factor than a MF SLR, at the cost of some sharpness and accuracy in focusing (in my opinion). Weight is a huge advantage though.



I have a Kiev 6C and it's quite heavy, so I kind of yearn for a TLR, but I have managed so far. I will have to see when it reaches it's limit. It's also nice to have interchangeable lenses.


I like SLRs over rangefinders for right now, because comparable rangefinder models are just way more expensive.


So far I have managed with the weight, but we'll see.

 

[dourbalistar]

I'm not sure what you mean by the Mamiya. Which Mamiya model are you talking about, are you talking about the 645 SLRs? I didn't know they had a dark plate.

The Mamiya C series TLRs have interchangeable lenses. When changing lenses, an interior cover (or what markjwyatt refers to as the "dark plate/curtain") shields the film from exposure to light.

 

[David Murphy]

The main advantage of a fixed lens TLR over many other medium format cameras, particularly medium format SLR's, is that they are more compact, light, and easy to carry. All medium format SLR systems that I have seen, have reliability issues and need frequent maintenance if used heavily (some are better than others, granted). Certain TLR's are very reliable compared to even the best medium format SLR's, in particular the Rolleiflex and the Yashica's. The Rolleiflex has uncompromising build quality and optics - not really equalled in any medium format SLR system I've seen (granted I've not seen them all, but I've seen a few).

 

[retinax]

I only have a little experience with an Minolta Autocord and a Zeiss Ikoflex IIa. From these two, I can't confirm any superiority of the German one. They both have some weaknesses that show they were made to a price point. I will stay away from the more full-featured Ikoflexes in the future. The auto-counter film advance mechanism is placed on top of, and makes inaccessible, parts of the focusing mechanism that need regular maintenance. Typical of Zeiss Ikon, a weird mix of over-engineering and stupid decisions.I can only suspect that Francke & Heidecke had better judgement, next to try for me will probably be a Rolleicord.
In any case you can buy both Ikoflexes and Rolleicords within your budget, but many will need some attention, so those with least automation are probably the best bet - less to go wrong, easier to repair. If you stretch the budget a bit, you can get an Autocord that has been serviced from a member here, they often show up in the classifieds.

 

[Phil_F_NM]

The focusing accuracy of a TLR vs SLR is no different. Functionally, there is more to go wrong with an SLR in the light path, but the TLR has to keep two lenses at exactly the same plane, so if it is dropped, then it needs to be collimated. Tools for the job, really. The TLR has a place and so does the SLR, and so does the rangefinder, and so does the view camera. Realistically, if the camera is well adjusted, and works properly, it can usually focus better than you can with your eyeball. That is, there is more variation in the way you look into the exit pupil, your eye/s, the available light, and the contrast of the subject, than there is in how the camera operates. Any lens with two elements or more, if well adjusted, will make a decent image, especially when stopped down a bit. I have a 1913 Kodak meniscus lens that performs just as well as my new 150mm Fujinon EBC at f/11 and beyond. Wide open though, it is dreamy.

You've had bad luck with rangefinders because the rangefinders you have are very finicky beasts with leaf shutters. There is a reason these are cheap. You get what you pay for. If the playing field is level (ie: you don't have a relative who is going to give you a nice camera of whatever type), you will always be getting a camera with lesser fit, finish, and usually reliability, if you try to go the cheap route. What this will lead to is either you sticking with your status quo and spending thousands of dollars on mediocre cameras time and again, or quitting the hobby altogether. Many folks here, myself included, are shooters and collectors because we enjoy the haptics and the engineering of the devices themselves. Recently, I began typewriter repair, and I'm apprenticing under an accomplished and highly skilled repairman, who has been doing this professionally for longer than I've been alive. I'm not really a writer but I know what machines work better than others. I also know that if you buy a Smith-Corona Silent Super or Royal Quiet DeLuxe, it is going to work better than a Tom Thumb, or even a rebadged Antares machine.
The same goes for cameras. Fixed lens rangefinders from the 60s like the Vitos are fun to try out and once in a while you may get a winner. I had one I shot with for a few rolls then it seized up and I got some other similar thing. They were cheap and convenient back when new, but are just cheap now. Some people will cry foul that I'm saying so, but there are unreliable cameras and there are reliable ones, plain and simple. With enough time and money, anything can be made to work, but that opportunity and actual cost could have been saved up and put towards a better camera.
30+ years ago, I started with a Pentax ME Super and a 50mm lens. I've been through many cameras since then, and recently decided that I would have probably been better off if I had stuck with that old Pentax instead of selling it and moving on to the faster, shinier, sleeker, shooter that only allowed me to burn through film faster, but not necessarily make better photos. So I found a "cheap" Pentax MX with 50mm lens, then I paid the best Pentax repairman a good amount of money to make it like new. It's an amazing camera.
So if you go cheap on a TLR or RF or SLR, you will get the results of cheap. If you want to make photos with a reliable camera, save up to buy one. If you want to make photos with a camera you repair or replace regularly, go cheap. Eventually, cheap becomes way more expensive, shot-per-shot. There are few exceptions to this rule, on both ends of the expense scale.

Phil Forrest

 

[retinax]

[...] the TLR has to keep two lenses at exactly the same plane[...]

Sorry I'm just referring to this small part of your post, I don't mean to imply your other points are less important, this just reminds me of something. My impression is that on the Autocord (and probably the few other TLRs that use a single helical), the inherent small bit of play in the helical translates into a larger bit of play for the relatively free-floating viewing lens. I don't think it's a great technical solution, one of my issues with the Autocord. The lens board of my Ikoflex has a similar amount of play due to the inaccessibility of the right hand focusing mechanism, which would just need to be re-lubed and tightened a little. Grrrrr.

 

[Forest_rain]

I understand what you're saying here, and I've found in many circumstances that spending less money on something can often be more expensive in the long run on certain things.

But I probably overstated my issues with my cheap leaf shutter rangefinders. The used camera market is often a strange beast and I cannot understand the pricing sometimes. Actually, I have a few Retinas, and they actually work fine (surprisingly) even though they were untested, they went for extremely cheap because the people selling them just wanted to get rid of them. A Retina definitely isn't "junk" IMHO, even though they are pretty cheap these days.

I'm actually enjoying fixing my leaf shutter rangefinder, I spent a total of $10 on degreaser and sewing machine oil, and I'm learning a lot and finding my Vitomatic II to be extremely well made. It probably cost about $150 in its day, which might be equal to thousands today with inflation. The Contessa being broken is my fault - I took off the top and snapped the flash contact off, and can't for the life of me fix it. But the shutter runs like a clock. It sold for $20, I can't imagine why.

A Zeiss lens superior to a cheaper Japanese variant? Probably, but is it $1000 superior? I guess that's subjective. Leica lenses have really amazing performance, and I think they are probably worth it assuming you can afford them from what I've seen (I personally cannot afford them).

Many people these days seem to equate newer = better. This is a big issue of contention for me. A modern A7 RIV costs THOUSANDs - but is it better than the A7 II? Probably, but the difference here to me is not worth it.

I've had good luck with my Kiev 6c, it runs great and produces great images. And it cost me $150 including a lens and shipping. It's not perfect but I haven't had any problems. Is a Mamiya 645 better? Probably, but I bought one and it arrived non-working, from a real reputable camera store, so I returned it. My Kiev 6c runs great, and I can even adapt the lens to a Mamiya if I buy one in the future.

We are talking about FSU rangefinders on the other thread. Some people seem to argue that they are cheap = unreliable and this was my main gripe with that argument. But many people on that thread are arguing (to my surprise) that they have had good experiences and that they can be "decent" performers.

That being said I will likely purchase a Canon 7 rangefinder when I can afford it as my main rangefinder. I definitely think that this is worth the purchase. I've heard that they are extremely high quality and worthy machines. I am still nervous about buying an FSU rangefinder in terms of reliability. But it very well may be that my Canon 7 will arrive with problems, and I may well have to spend some money getting it CLA'd.

But I do enjoy my time fixing my cheaper rangefinders, they are cheap enough to experiment on and learn on before buying more expensive equipment, and risk breaking something by trying to calibrate expensive equipment myself.

You could argue that I should have gone straight to the Canon 7, but the cheaper equipment has given me the ability to try out a rangefinder before investing more, a better understanding of how cameras work in general, an appreciation for history, and certainly $20 per camera is pretty trivial for what I've gained in the experience on working with these pretty fine but older models.

You've had bad luck with rangefinders because the rangefinders you have are very finicky beasts with leaf shutters. There is a reason these are cheap. You get what you pay for. If the playing field is level (ie: you don't have a relative who is going to give you a nice camera of whatever type), you will always be getting a camera with lesser fit, finish, and usually reliability, if you try to go the cheap route. What this will lead to is either you sticking with your status quo and spending thousands of dollars on mediocre cameras time and again, or quitting the hobby altogether. Many folks here, myself included, are shooters and collectors because we enjoy the haptics and the engineering of the devices themselves. Recently, I began typewriter repair, and I'm apprenticing under an accomplished and highly skilled repairman, who has been doing this professionally for longer than I've been alive. I'm not really a writer but I know what machines work better than others. I also know that if you buy a Smith-Corona Silent Super or Royal Quiet DeLuxe, it is going to work better than a Tom Thumb, or even a rebadged Antares machine.
The same goes for cameras. Fixed lens rangefinders from the 60s like the Vitos are fun to try out and once in a while you may get a winner. I had one I shot with for a few rolls then it seized up and I got some other similar thing. They were cheap and convenient back when new, but are just cheap now. Some people will cry foul that I'm saying so, but there are unreliable cameras and there are reliable ones, plain and simple. With enough time and money, anything can be made to work, but that opportunity and actual cost could have been saved up and put towards a better camera.
30+ years ago, I started with a Pentax ME Super and a 50mm lens. I've been through many cameras since then, and recently decided that I would have probably been better off if I had stuck with that old Pentax instead of selling it and moving on to the faster, shinier, sleeker, shooter that only allowed me to burn through film faster, but not necessarily make better photos. So I found a "cheap" Pentax MX with 50mm lens, then I paid the best Pentax repairman a good amount of money to make it like new. It's an amazing camera.
So if you go cheap on a TLR or RF or SLR, you will get the results of cheap. If you want to make photos with a reliable camera, save up to buy one. If you want to make photos with a camera you repair or replace regularly, go cheap. Eventually, cheap becomes way more expensive, shot-per-shot. There are few exceptions to this rule, on both ends of the expense scale.

Phil Forrest

 

[aizan]

I can't believe I've never seen this Argoflex before. That's what I call style!

 

[Phil_F_NM]

A Zeiss lens superior to a cheaper Japanese variant? Probably, but is it $1000 superior? I guess that's subjective. Leica lenses have really amazing performance, and I think they are probably worth it assuming you can afford them from what I've seen (I personally cannot afford them).

I'll be the first person to say that a Zeiss or Leica lens is not necessarily better in any way, than some Japanese lenses. The 50mm f/1.4 Super-Multi-Coated Takumar being one of the main examples. The Japanese lenses are often found in better condition and had the best coatings in the world once SMC was introduced. If I only had a Pentax Spotmatic with 50mm SMC Takumar, I would have nothing to complain about. There is too much lore about Zeiss and Leica. Back in 2012, I put a Helios 103 against a 50mm Summilux ASPH that had just returned from Leica. The Helios only fell short in the corners at wide apertures, other than that, it held up against the Leica optic, shot for shot, aperture for aperture, aat and above f/2.8. I've gone down that road and found, after owning and using tens of thousands of dollars in equipment, that Nikon and Pentax make the best images, for the most part, in my opinion. There are some things that lens design force, such as retrofocal optics clearing reflex mirrors. These optics add at least 2 air/glass surfaces and introduce more aberrations and distortion. This is why a $20 Jupiter-12 which is properly adjusted can beat a brand new SLR lens such as an equivalent Canon or Nikkor 35mm f/2. The same goes for medium format optics, which can be quite compact, as long as the rear element doesn't have to compete for space with a reflex mirror. This is how and why TLRs can be as compact as they are and give such good images as they do.
I love Rolleiflex TLRs and I wish I still had mine but I'm perfectly happy with my Yashica D, which cost me lust a little less than the CLA on my old Rolleiflex 3.5E did.
When I say "cheap" I mean things like leaf shutter SLRs and post 1970s FSU cameras. They all need work and sometimes 50+ years has not treated the camera insides as well as the outside. Those Vito versions always look gorgeous on the outside and have bright finders, but they are incredibly complex and clumsy to use reliably, for long.
I thought I was going to get a Canon P for my first interchangeable lens rangefinder but it wound up being a Leica M2 because a friend made me a deal on the camera. Looking back, I wish I never sold my original Hexar to fund the M2.
Going back to TLRs and cheap vs not, I really want a Koniflex now. After all this time, I've "collected" all the gear I could ever want and more than I need, but I still want that Koniflex with a Heliar lens copy. It makes gorgeous images and it's Konishiroku, so that's enoug for me. One day, when I have a spare $400 to blow. Really, if you want a good medium format shooter, for not much money, you can't go wrong with a Yashica-Mat or Yashica D/635, Minolta Autocord, or Ricoh Diacord. The key to making sure they work is to get them serviced by a knowledgeable tech, that's why all those Autocord focus levers are broken, because people are forcing them against 60 years of hardened helical grease. They all used lenses almost identical to most Rolleiflex models (except for the Planar lens models), in that they use a Tessar design. Any one of them will do just fine and make great images, as long as they are serviced. Heck, purchase any cheap camera and have it serviced, and you're still in for ~$200, just because the technician's time. But it is very worth it to have a camera which is properly working, not just a kludge fix that will eventually need servicing.
If you have Retinas, go shoot them!

Phil Forrest

 

[Deleted member 65559]

I can't believe I've never seen this Argoflex before. That's what I call style!

Argh!!!!! What a beauty..... that would almost turn me into a collector.
Where's Greyscale??